Slashdot Mirror
Why AMD Is Still In The Race
Steve Kerrison writes "Despite a woeful inability to provide some of its most loyal customers with stock, and a range of CPUs that, currently, loses out to Intel's Core 2 processors in both price and performance (and who would I be not to mention the diminishing AMD fanboy numbers?), AMD's still got enough tricks up its sleeve to retaliate against Intel in due course. HEXUS.net has an opinion piece on why AMD isn't up the creek. From the article: AMD has been showing off its 65nm wafers for a few months now, which means the Rev G core is on its way. Even if the DDR2 memory controller which arrived with the Rev F only had a small performance benefit, Rev G has a few more improvements than just the die shrink. The latter will enable higher clock speeds and a lower price, plus allow AMD to compete on an equal playing field to Intel, which has been manufacturing 65nm processors since the Pentium XE 955 at the end of 2005."
"... Microsoft who spend three years ignoring a government directive..."
Possibly the only good reason to like Microsoft. By the way, no government has a monopoly on the terms "right" and "wrong".
I was an avid AMD fan but for the last year I have watched them nickel and dime their buyers with small speed bumps for tonnes of money. I know many will say thats how it is but when they keep playing games going from 2.2,2.4,2.6,2.8Ghz chips and then they release their AM2 and you think they would contiune past the 3.0Ghz but instead what did they do 2.2,2.4,2.6... what the heck is that crap??. After I saw that I SAID YOUR SCREWING US AMD AND WE ARE GONNA SCREW YOU!!.